I had always played it as "a cantrip with a casting time of an action" as per the basic rules until someone pointed out that Xanathar's guide had changed it to "cantrips with a casting time of an action." Either way, bonus action spells and reaction spells never mix on your turn.
Trying to separate reaction spells from action spells is moot for the rule...the text just says "spell" and "during the same turn" so it means both kinds. There is no implicit exception, and only one explicit exception, the single action cantrip. Reaction spells are by default not a single action, so they can't meet the exception, ever (and unless you are homebrewing, there are no reaction cantrips that I can think of, so you can't meet the other part of the exception either)
It's not irrelevant in the slightest... reactions have a very specific scope of use: when a trigger occurs. The purpose they exist for is to use in response to something which you cannot control. You cannot (in reality) fully plan for reaction triggers. You can really only plan to the extent of having the feature(s) available for use with a reaction. Drawing an inference from a rule which only concerns the interaction of action/bonus action on your turn as being exclusive of reactions--which are defined separately, and treated as entirely separate everywhere else in the rules--implicitly devalues the entire concept of spells with a casting time of 1 reaction.
Do we want to go deeper? How do you all feel about somatic components while holding a spellcasting focus? How many here hold the view that you can't do the somatic component of a S/VS (no material component) spell while holding a focus? It's a significant, recurring debate, and the logic of that argument is inversely parallel to this one.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Trying to separate reaction spells from action spells is moot for the rule...the text just says "spell" and "during the same turn" so it means both kinds. There is no implicit exception, and only one explicit exception, the single action cantrip. Reaction spells are by default not a single action, so they can't meet the exception, ever (and unless you are homebrewing, there are no reaction cantrips that I can think of, so you can't meet the other part of the exception either)
The war caster feat could provide for casting a cantrip as a reaction.
It's not irrelevant in the slightest... reactions have a very specific scope of use: when a trigger occurs. The purpose they exist for is to use in response to something which you cannot control. You cannot (in reality) fully plan for reaction triggers. You can really only plan to the extent of having the feature(s) available for use with a reaction. Drawing an inference from a rule which only concerns the interaction of action/bonus action on your turn as being exclusive of reactions--which are defined separately, and treated as entirely separate everywhere else in the rules--implicitly devalues the entire concept of spells with a casting time of 1 reaction.
Please demonstrate the point at which the rule on bonus action spellcasting says it concerns the interaction of action/bonus action on your turn. It concerns the interaction of bonus action and any other spell. Suggesting that it only applies to action/bonus action spells is something I can't even recognize as an inference right now, because I see literally zero possible premise from which it could be inferred.
So please, if I'm missing some foundation on which you're basing the statement that "You can't cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action" actually means "You can't cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action or a spell with a casting time of 1 reaction," show me where it is.
Trying to separate reaction spells from action spells is moot for the rule...the text just says "spell" and "during the same turn" so it means both kinds. There is no implicit exception, and only one explicit exception, the single action cantrip. Reaction spells are by default not a single action, so they can't meet the exception, ever (and unless you are homebrewing, there are no reaction cantrips that I can think of, so you can't meet the other part of the exception either)
The war caster feat could provide for casting a cantrip as a reaction.
Unless your game does not have Feats.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
So please, if I'm missing some foundation on which you're basing the statement that "You can't cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action" actually means "You can't cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action or a spell with a casting time of 1 reaction," show me where it is.
You guys are saying the same thing.
During YOUR turn, you can only cast a Bonus Action spell and an action Cantrip, or a action spell. After that it is no longer your turn and you can cast a Reaction Spell.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
Trying to separate reaction spells from action spells is moot for the rule...the text just says "spell" and "during the same turn" so it means both kinds. There is no implicit exception, and only one explicit exception, the single action cantrip. Reaction spells are by default not a single action, so they can't meet the exception, ever (and unless you are homebrewing, there are no reaction cantrips that I can think of, so you can't meet the other part of the exception either)
The war caster feat could provide for casting a cantrip as a reaction.
So please, if I'm missing some foundation on which you're basing the statement that "You can't cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action" actually means "You can't cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action or a spell with a casting time of 1 reaction," show me where it is.
You guys are saying the same thing.
During YOUR turn, you can only cast a Bonus Action spell and an action Cantrip, or a action spell. After that it is no longer your turn and you can cast a Reaction Spell.
That is true, and that is what I am saying. That is not what Sigred is saying. Sigred is saying that you are able to cast a reaction spell on your turn even if you've cast a spell as a bonus action. At least, that's what everyone else in this thread thinks Sigred is saying. I'd welcome it if this were all just a misunderstanding.
This whole thing wouldn't be as controversial if they simply named your action economy something like "Action A" and "Action B" and not "Action" and "Bonus Action".
There is evidence here and there in the books that WotC wants us to think that Bonus Actions are "lesser actions" - they don't normally allow for grand spectacular effects and even Metamagic describes spells used as Bonus Action as "especially swift".
But here is the thing - if you can't replace your supposed "lesser action" (Bonus action) with your "greater action" (a normal action) then they might as well be equal.
Right now we have this idiotic rule that says if you cast a spell that is worth more (1 action) then you can easily counterspell in the same turn but if you manage to cast that spell as your "lesser action" (Bonus action) you can't do it.
Even WotC admitted that the limitation is not because it's OP but because they wanted people to streamline the combat experience and not look long for potential spells they can cast (just look at cantrips!). Considering reactions and the existence of Action surges and metamagic this leads to so many headaches that this was one of the first rules I abolished at my table.
I can only think of a handful maybe _2_instances where you would want to cast all three types of spells during your turn. And seriously, it's not that big a deal.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
I can only think of a handful maybe _2_instances where you would want to cast all three types of spells during your turn. And seriously, it's not that big a deal.
I never said it does abolish the spell rules, if you are referring to me.
I can only think of a handful maybe _2_instances where you would want to cast all three types of spells during your turn. And seriously, it's not that big a deal.
I never said it does abolish the spell rules, if you are referring to me.
So what's the problem?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
I can only think of a handful maybe _2_instances where you would want to cast all three types of spells during your turn. And seriously, it's not that big a deal.
I never said it does abolish the spell rules, if you are referring to me.
So what's the problem?
No problem for me. Like I said, I adjusted my rules because I don't like the idea that if my player casts a 1 action spell and my NPC counterspells it, the player can counterspell it back but if that player casts a bonus action spell then they can't do shit about the counterspell.
As for Action Surge, it is a headache for newer players especially since the spell action economy works retroactively which is also not evident from the wording at first glance so they need to have their whole turn and spells mapped out before they start declaring actions.
Yeah, in my opinion, the cost benefit analysis for just striking the entire rule about Bonus Action spells limiting your turn weighs heavily in favor of houseruling it to do away with it, if it's causing your group's caster frustration and confusion. The most often time the spell comes up is hearing the caster mutter "oh, shoot, I was planning to do X and forgot... ugh, now my turn is ruined!", which isn't a great feeling.
This whole thing became a lot less ponderous for me when I stopped looking at it as a rule for casting multiple spells that had a restriction on bonus action spells and started lookiung at it as a rule about bonus action spells that provided for a little leeway on cantrips.
as it says inside the reaction casting time rules above... reactions can only be cast in response to their triggers... your turn, other turns, whenever
if the trigger is met the reaction spell can be cast, so long as you have a reaction to cast it with.
And as it says in the bonus action spell rule, the only spells you can cast in the same turn you cast with a bonus action are cantrips with a cast time of one action, which reaction spells are not. It's not complicated. If the trigger is met on the same turn you cast a spell with a bonus action, you can't cast a spell in reaction to it.
Why would the Bonus Action rule supercede the Reaction rule?
These 2 rules contradict each other as the bonus one says you can't cast any other spell (except an action cantrip one) and the reaction one says you can cast a reaction whenever the trigger occurs.
as it says inside the reaction casting time rules above... reactions can only be cast in response to their triggers... your turn, other turns, whenever
if the trigger is met the reaction spell can be cast, so long as you have a reaction to cast it with.
And as it says in the bonus action spell rule, the only spells you can cast in the same turn you cast with a bonus action are cantrips with a cast time of one action, which reaction spells are not. It's not complicated. If the trigger is met on the same turn you cast a spell with a bonus action, you can't cast a spell in reaction to it.
Why would the Bonus Action rule supercede the Reaction rule?
These 2 rules contradict each other as the bonus one says you can't cast any other spell (except an action cantrip one) and the reaction one says you can cast a reaction whenever the trigger occurs.
How can these rules be reconciled?
The action rule says you can cast a spell as an action, the bonus action rule says you can't. How can these rules be reconciled?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I had always played it as "a cantrip with a casting time of an action" as per the basic rules until someone pointed out that Xanathar's guide had changed it to "cantrips with a casting time of an action." Either way, bonus action spells and reaction spells never mix on your turn.
When in doubt, follow the easy flowchart:
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Trying to separate reaction spells from action spells is moot for the rule...the text just says "spell" and "during the same turn" so it means both kinds. There is no implicit exception, and only one explicit exception, the single action cantrip. Reaction spells are by default not a single action, so they can't meet the exception, ever (and unless you are homebrewing, there are no reaction cantrips that I can think of, so you can't meet the other part of the exception either)
See how important the distinction is between inclusionary rules as compared to exclusionary rules. 😜
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Epic Boons on DDB
It's not irrelevant in the slightest... reactions have a very specific scope of use: when a trigger occurs. The purpose they exist for is to use in response to something which you cannot control. You cannot (in reality) fully plan for reaction triggers. You can really only plan to the extent of having the feature(s) available for use with a reaction. Drawing an inference from a rule which only concerns the interaction of action/bonus action on your turn as being exclusive of reactions--which are defined separately, and treated as entirely separate everywhere else in the rules--implicitly devalues the entire concept of spells with a casting time of 1 reaction.
Do we want to go deeper? How do you all feel about somatic components while holding a spellcasting focus? How many here hold the view that you can't do the somatic component of a S/VS (no material component) spell while holding a focus? It's a significant, recurring debate, and the logic of that argument is inversely parallel to this one.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
🤦♂️
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Epic Boons on DDB
The war caster feat could provide for casting a cantrip as a reaction.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Please demonstrate the point at which the rule on bonus action spellcasting says it concerns the interaction of action/bonus action on your turn. It concerns the interaction of bonus action and any other spell. Suggesting that it only applies to action/bonus action spells is something I can't even recognize as an inference right now, because I see literally zero possible premise from which it could be inferred.
So please, if I'm missing some foundation on which you're basing the statement that "You can't cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action" actually means "You can't cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action or a spell with a casting time of 1 reaction," show me where it is.
Unless your game does not have Feats.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
You guys are saying the same thing.
During YOUR turn, you can only cast a Bonus Action spell and an action Cantrip, or a action spell. After that it is no longer your turn and you can cast a Reaction Spell.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
All of my games have feats :)
"Not all those who wander are lost"
That is true, and that is what I am saying. That is not what Sigred is saying. Sigred is saying that you are able to cast a reaction spell on your turn even if you've cast a spell as a bonus action. At least, that's what everyone else in this thread thinks Sigred is saying. I'd welcome it if this were all just a misunderstanding.
This whole thing wouldn't be as controversial if they simply named your action economy something like "Action A" and "Action B" and not "Action" and "Bonus Action".
There is evidence here and there in the books that WotC wants us to think that Bonus Actions are "lesser actions" - they don't normally allow for grand spectacular effects and even Metamagic describes spells used as Bonus Action as "especially swift".
But here is the thing - if you can't replace your supposed "lesser action" (Bonus action) with your "greater action" (a normal action) then they might as well be equal.
Right now we have this idiotic rule that says if you cast a spell that is worth more (1 action) then you can easily counterspell in the same turn but if you manage to cast that spell as your "lesser action" (Bonus action) you can't do it.
Even WotC admitted that the limitation is not because it's OP but because they wanted people to streamline the combat experience and not look long for potential spells they can cast (just look at cantrips!). Considering reactions and the existence of Action surges and metamagic this leads to so many headaches that this was one of the first rules I abolished at my table.
Action Surge doesn't abolish the spell rules.
I can only think of a handful maybe _2_instances where you would want to cast all three types of spells during your turn. And seriously, it's not that big a deal.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
I never said it does abolish the spell rules, if you are referring to me.
So what's the problem?
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
No problem for me. Like I said, I adjusted my rules because I don't like the idea that if my player casts a 1 action spell and my NPC counterspells it, the player can counterspell it back but if that player casts a bonus action spell then they can't do shit about the counterspell.
As for Action Surge, it is a headache for newer players especially since the spell action economy works retroactively which is also not evident from the wording at first glance so they need to have their whole turn and spells mapped out before they start declaring actions.
Yeah, in my opinion, the cost benefit analysis for just striking the entire rule about Bonus Action spells limiting your turn weighs heavily in favor of houseruling it to do away with it, if it's causing your group's caster frustration and confusion. The most often time the spell comes up is hearing the caster mutter "oh, shoot, I was planning to do X and forgot... ugh, now my turn is ruined!", which isn't a great feeling.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
This whole thing became a lot less ponderous for me when I stopped looking at it as a rule for casting multiple spells that had a restriction on bonus action spells and started lookiung at it as a rule about bonus action spells that provided for a little leeway on cantrips.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Why would the Bonus Action rule supercede the Reaction rule?
These 2 rules contradict each other as the bonus one says you can't cast any other spell (except an action cantrip one) and the reaction one says you can cast a reaction whenever the trigger occurs.
How can these rules be reconciled?
The action rule says you can cast a spell as an action, the bonus action rule says you can't. How can these rules be reconciled?